(Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.) - Leave granted.

2.These appeals involved identical issues. While two appeals are against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the other two are against the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

3.The controversy lies in a very narrow compass. Writ petitions were filed by the respondents in each case questioning correctness of a stipulation in the “Notice Inviting Tender” (in short `NIT’) containing a disqualification clause which disentitled an intending tenderer to submit tender whose near relative is working in any of the units of the appellant-BSNL. According to the writ petitioners such a prohibition was impermissible. It was submitted that if the ultimate intention was to ensure that a person working in the unit will not be able to influence the decision-making process in respect of the tender, the same is irrelevant if the person concerned is holding a post of Class III or Class IV. The Himachal Pradesh High Court referred to an earlier order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Narinder Kumar v. Union of India and another, C.W.P. No.33 of 1995, where a similar stipulation was struck down. Accordingly,